04/29/2026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 21, 2025 Session

JOSHUA MATTHEW BROWN v. KIMBERLY HIGGINBOTHAM BROWN

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County No. 2023-CV-387 Joe Thompson, Judge ___________________________________

No. M2024-01179-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The parties were married over twenty years and had three children. The mother was a stay-at-home parent while Father was employed. At trial, they stipulated to separate parenting schedules for their two teenagers but could not agree on a parenting schedule for their youngest daughter, a former foster child they had adopted years earlier. The trial court designated the father primary residential parent of the youngest daughter and adopted a parenting schedule with equal parenting time on an alternating weekly basis. The trial court denied the mother’s request for alimony in futuro and awarded her transitional alimony for a period of five months. The trial court ordered the father to pay $6,000 of the mother’s attorney fees, but each party was deemed responsible for the remainder of his or her own attorney fees. The mother appeals. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed in Part, Vacated in Part, and Remanded

CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KENNY W. ARMSTRONG and VALERIE L. SMITH, JJ., joined.

Russell E. Edwards, Hendersonville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Kimberly Higginbotham Brown.

Christopher Beauchamp and Thomas A. Maynard, Lebanon, Tennessee, for the appellee, Joshua Matthew Brown.

OPINION

I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Joshua Matthew Brown (“Father”) and Kimberly Higginbotham Brown (“Mother”) married in 2002 in Georgia. Father has a master’s degree in educational management, issue, and policy; and Mother has a master’s degree in literacy. Early in the marriage, Father worked for an educational publishing company, while Mother worked as a teacher in Georgia. In 2006, the parties adopted a newborn son, Noah. They agreed that Mother would stay home to care for Noah and no longer work outside the home. Mother gave birth to the parties’ second child, Anna, in 2008. At some point, the family moved to Tennessee, and Father began working for the Lebanon Special School District in 2011. Noah and Anna attended public school for a year or two before the parties decided that Mother would homeschool the children.

In 2015, Father and Mother began serving as foster parents to another newborn child, Lasa. They eventually adopted Lasa, just before her third birthday. The parties agreed to send Lasa to a public school because she is African-American, and they wanted her to have a diverse school environment. They lived in Bethpage in Sumner County and sent Lasa to Benny Bills Elementary School in Gallatin. Father remained employed by the school district in Lebanon, where he worked 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. However, his commute was 38 minutes, so he typically left between 6:30 and 7 a.m. and arrived home between 4:40 and 5:20 p.m., although sometimes it was later. His salary was $102,500.

After twenty years of marriage, in March 2023, Father announced to the family that he wanted a divorce. He filed his complaint for divorce in April. Mother filed an answer denying that grounds for divorce existed or that the parties should be divorced. The divorce trial was held over the course of two days in December 2023 and January 2024. Thus, the divorce proceeding had been pending for just seven months when trial began. At the outset, Father’s counsel informed the judge that the two older children had essentially “chosen a parent” – “Noah has chosen his father, Anna has chosen her mother.” However, all of the family members were still residing together in the marital residence. The parties stipulated to the divorce, a “50/50” division of the marital estate, and to a schedule for the two older children. The parenting plan and child support worksheet would provide that Anna (age 15) resided with Mother 233 days and Father 132 days and that Noah (age 17) resided with Father 233 days and Mother 132 days. Ultimately, however, the parents agreed to respect the wishes of the teenagers on how much they actually visited the other parent. The primary issues left for determination were the parenting schedule for eight-year-old Lasa; alimony; and attorney fees. However, the trial judge agreed to hear evidence regarding parenting issues concerning the older children to the extent that it was relevant to determining a parenting schedule for Lasa. Father proposed an alternating weekly schedule for Lasa with the parties designated joint primary residential parents, while Mother proposed that Lasa primarily reside with her, having parenting time with Father every other weekend and every Thursday night.

The trial court heard testimony from Father, Mother, and Anna. Father was 45 years old. He testified first regarding Noah. Father explained that the relationship between Mother and Noah had become “pretty rocky, here recently especially.” In the last couple of weeks, Mother had sent Father a message stating that Noah had become “defiant, disrespectful, and disgusting” and that she believed it was unsafe for him to be alone with their daughters. She informed Father that Noah was becoming “more aggressive, threatening, AND deceitful in hiding it and taking advantage when there is no parent around.” Father testified that he did not agree with Mother’s opinion that Noah was unsafe to be around the other children. He was also asked if he recalled Mother referring to Noah as a “cheater” and “liar” during her deposition and whether he agreed with those statements. Father admitted that “[Noah has] had some times where that’s been a struggle for him.” Still, he said he did not think it was fair to “characterize him as a liar and cheater.” He testified that Noah had been “struggling” but that he had encouraged him to respect and love Mother. Father said that Mother has “a tone that makes Noah uncomfortable” and that she yells at the children “maybe once or twice a week.” He said that Mother uses a “very loud raised voice that Noah describes as yelling and so do I.” He said he encourages the relationship between Noah and Mother and tells Noah to approach their conflict calmly.

Next, Father testified regarding Anna. He said that he and Anna had a very close relationship before he filed for divorce. He explained that in the first couple of weeks after the divorce was filed, they were “all in shock” but still talking and spending time together, but then the situation changed and Anna had communicated with him very little since. Father testified that Anna responded to a few text messages “early on” when he reached out, but he had tried sending notes to Anna and that she had not responded to those. He estimated that anytime the family members were all in the marital home at the same time, Anna spent “probably 95 percent of the time” in Mother’s bedroom with her. He said “a lot of times” Anna will communicate things to him through Mother. He admitted, however, that Anna had asked him a few things directly lately and “kind of expressed where she is in this difficult time.” When asked if Mother encourages Anna to communicate with him, Father said, “I do not think so because a lot of the things that she would normally come tell me, she doesn’t, and [Mother] is the one that communicates that.” Father was then asked, “Do you know if [Mother] has communicated this matter with Anna?” He responded, “I feel like, from the things that have been said, it sounds like there’s been a lot communicated.” The following exchange occurred between Father and his counsel:

Q. . . . Has [Mother] told Anna what this divorce was and given her her opinion? A. I believe so. Q. Do you think that her mother’s opinion has influenced Anna on how she treats you? A. Yes. Q. What does she say? You recall in her deposition she called it something. What did she call this divorce?

A. She’s used wrong and unbiblical.

Father was asked if he believed Mother was encouraging a relationship with him and the children and said no. When asked if he thought Mother had “discouraged a relationship and maybe poisoned that relationship,” he replied, “I believe so.” Finally, Father was asked if he agreed with Mother’s deposition testimony that it was Father who caused his relationship with Anna to change by filing for divorce. He replied, “It has changed dramatically. I know this is a very hard time, but I feel like that there’s been influence.” Still, he believed he could rebuild their relationship.

Next, Father testified about Lasa. He and Mother had been Lasa’s foster parents, and Lasa had lived in their home her entire life with the exception of ten days. Father described his relationship with Lasa as “very tight.” He said that, when he is at home, Lasa spends the “vast majority” of that time with him, and they love doing activities together. He described Lasa’s daily schedule, stating that on weekdays she wakes up by 6:15 and gets ready for school independently, although Mother lays out her clothes for her. Father acknowledged that caring for Lasa’s hair requires special techniques and that Mother had been the one primarily caring for Lasa’s hair, but he had already purchased necessary products and had a salon appointment scheduled. Father testified that Mother takes Lasa to school four days per week and that he takes her on Thursdays. He said he had asked Mother recently if he could take Lasa to school on additional days, but she declined.

Father was asked to explain his plan for Lasa’s schedule in the event the trial court granted his request for equal parenting time on an alternating weekly basis. He planned to take Lasa to school each morning during his week. Father said he was looking at rental properties in the school zone for Benny Bills Elementary. He explained that he would drop off Lasa at her elementary school at 7:00 a.m. in order to be at work in Lebanon by 8:00 a.m. He testified that he had enrolled Lasa in the after-school care program at Benny Bills Elementary and that she would need to stay there until 4:30 in the afternoons when he could get there after work. He acknowledged that Mother believed the after-school program was a terrible idea. Mother had picked up Lasa from school every day of the previous semester, and she wanted to continue to do so even on days when Father would have parenting time. However, Father testified that he believed the after-school program would be beneficial because it offered tutoring, and Lasa was struggling with her grades. He noted that Lasa had once attended a pre-K program at a school in his district and attended after-school care there until he could pick her up after work. Father testified that he also planned to enroll Lasa in a summer program in his school district because he would have to work six of the eight weeks of summer break, although he would have Fridays off during the summer.

Father conceded that Mother is a good mother to the children. However, his counsel asked him the following questions:

Q. Do you believe the deterioration of your relationship with Anna could happen to Lasa? A. I do. Q. Okay. And that would have been from [Mother] talking to Anna and eventually talking to Lasa; is that right? A. That’s right. Q. Do you believe that [Mother’s] behavior is emotionally damaging or harmful to the children? A. Yes. Q. Do you think that would increase with you being out of the home and not having equal time with the children? A. Yes, I do. Q. Has [Mother] attempted to alienate you from Anna? A. I think so.

Father conceded that Mother had been “the primary caregiver” for all three children due to his work schedule. He testified that he expected Mother to enter the workforce and work full-time since the parties were divorcing. On cross-examination, Father conceded that although he only works four workdays during the summer, he works for an hour longer on those days. During the previous summer, for example, he had arrived at work in Lebanon at 7:00 a.m. Monday through Thursday. With his 24-mile commute, he left for work each morning during the summer about 6:20 a.m. He had no relatives nearby who would be available to help with childcare. Still, Father maintained that it was in Lasa’s best interest to attend after-school care rather than being with Mother because it would provide “consistency” and she would not be going “back and forth.”

Father’s salary was $102,500. His monthly net income was $6,162.78, but he admitted this would soon increase because he would no longer have deductions for family coverage on insurance. He submitted an income and expense statement as an exhibit at trial, reflecting current monthly expenses of $5,478.01, leaving a monthly surplus of $684.77. However, he explained that this reflected current expenses for the entire family over the past year. Father had prepared a separate “Post-Divorce Budget” of expenses that he anticipated after the divorce. This document listed only $4,402.90 in post-divorce expenses (without child support). Still, when asked how much money he would have left each month to pay as far as spousal support, Father estimated “600 maybe.” Father was asked how much spousal support he proposed should be awarded and responded, “I would very much like to see her reach full employment and see what I’m able to do to help.” He noted that Mother had recently taken a job working about twenty hours per week and believed there was nothing preventing her from working forty. Finally, Father was asked “[w]hat do you think would be a fair length of time for you to have to pay her spousal support?” He said, “I think until Anna is done with high school.”

Father testified that he and Mother did not currently communicate very often, even though they continued to live in the marital residence together, and they generally communicated by text message. He admitted it was “a hard environment at home.” He also admitted he understood why his family was not completely supportive of his decision to get a divorce. Father testified that he had taught the children about faith and Christianity. He believed that his decision to seek a divorce was consistent with what he had taught his children and believed that divorce was acceptable because of “the environment we’ve been in.” He no longer attended the church where the family attended during the marriage, but Mother and the children did. Father was also asked if he understood why Anna lost some trust in him because of the divorce. He responded, “I understand this has been very difficult for all of them and especially for her.” He was asked if being divorced was more important than getting to see his children every day and said it was, adding, “That’s what I needed to do.”

Father testified that he had been seeing a counselor since 2021. Prior to trial, the trial court had denied Mother’s motion to compel Father to execute a release for his counseling records, as the trial court deemed them protected therapy records. Father admitted at trial that he reacts differently than others when people express frustration and anger, as he “feel[s] like it’s more intense” than what other people perceive, and it takes him longer than most people to calm down. ^[1] He admitted that what he perceives as hostility

1 Father had written a letter to his parents explaining his issue with the following examples: . . . The first one is an experience from one of the last times I visited your house with all the kids. Daddy was on the phone with a customer service agent I think with an Internet provider. His voice was raised and he was being very unkind to the agent. There was an awkward silence at the kitchen table as we all listened to his part of the exchange. We tried to make light of it at the moment but it was uncomfortable. Noah still references that event sometimes. Next story. I think it was January and [Mother] was driving the car down the highway. Someone in front of her was driving slowly in the left lane and [Mother] expressed her frustration with the driver out loud with a frustrated, raised voice. There was an awkward silence in the car for a short while afterwards. Now, in both of those examples a normal person (so I have recently learned) might hear the anger or frustration of Daddy or [Mother], may or may not comment to them directly, might even talk to them about it in an effort to help them work through it, but would likely give them a short time or space to calm down and then move on with their day and normal interactions. What happens in me is sickness in my stomach, my pulse increasing, muscles tighten up, my mouth gets dry, and above all a desire to get away. So much so that this fight or flight reaction lasts for days afterwards. Three days to be specific. Whatever that abnormal reaction is that makes me want to get away from the person expressing a raised voice, frustration, or anger lasts for three days. Three days where I don’t want to be in their presence, don’t want to talk to them, and feel on edge and tense around them. Why do I react differently to anger than other people? Why do I react like that with expressions of anger, frustration, and raised voices? In the two very simple examples above the anger/frustration was not even directed toward me. In the countless memories I’m working through of when it was directed toward me the reaction and recovery time was about the same but with much greater intensity. This recognition is what I began working with my counselor on. Sara (my or anger, from Mother or anyone else, might not seem hostile or threatening to others. Father testified that he believed Mother was emotionally abusive to Noah, but he admitted it was possible his perception of abuse might be different than someone else’s. He testified that he had also been diagnosed with mild seasonal depression and that he had been taking an antidepressant seasonally from October through February since 2016. He said it had not impacted his ability to parent.

At the end of the first day of trial, on December 15, Mother informed the trial judge that she and Anna planned to move out of the marital home into a rental house owned by friends. The trial judge adopted a temporary parenting schedule for Lasa for the holiday break. When the trial resumed on January 24, Father testified regarding events that had transpired over the break. He testified that the plan for Christmas was for Noah to go to Alabama with Mother and his sisters to visit family, but a couple of days before, Noah “voiced” that he wanted to leave there midday and drive back to Tennessee to spend the night with him. Father testified that Noah’s announcement “was met with a response from [Mother] that essentially said, just don’t come at Christmas.” He testified that it was his understanding of the parties’ agreement that the older children would be able to visit each parent as he or she preferred. When asked if he believed Noah needed to apologize to his mother for the situation, Father said, “I could not understand what it was that needed an apology for, for him asking to spend Christmas day with both parents.” 2

Father testified about another incident that also occurred during Christmas break when Mother, Anna, and Lasa came to the marital residence to retrieve some items. Father knew they were coming beforehand and had set up security cameras that recorded them while they were there. He testified that he saw on the footage that Anna threw down a remote control while she was there, and when she saw the security camera, she unplugged it. He said he later learned that Anna took the key out of the “side-by-side” and threw it counselor) calls it a trauma response.

Father wrote that he was “learning through counseling that anger is a normal human emotion, frustration is not the same as anger, and a raised voice does not always mean a person is angry.” 2 Some of the parties’ text messages about the issue were introduced at trial. In those messages, Mother stated that Noah was proposing to arrive in Alabama on Sunday and drive back by himself on Monday at lunchtime, and she stated that Noah was “being insensitive to the situation and dismissive and rude.” Father said he had advised Noah to think about the decision overnight, but Mother responded, “Unfortunately, it’s not his decision to make anymore. He’s made them all uncomfortable and hurt and they don’t want that energy there.” She later added, “Neither do I.” Her separate text message to Noah said that he had been “wrong headed and cold” toward a lot of people and that she expected him to send a sincere apology to their family members. Father asked Mother to call him to discuss the situation and stated that “[c]oparenting requires communication,” but Mother responded by stating that it was “time you step up and actually actively parent without relying on me to always tell you what is going on.” She stated that Noah had “defiantly” not answered her messages at Father’s direction and that “nobody in that courtroom is going to believe your charade about helping him understand,” stating Father had “stood in the way of communication.” She explained that Noah had “called me pissy, childish, and whiny.”

beneath a hot water heater.

Father testified that his communication with Mother had been okay aside from these two incidents. They had met with a realtor and handled financial issues in a civil manner. Father testified that he had “very little communication with Anna outside of text exchanges, group texts,” and he bought her Christmas presents that she sent back unopened. In contrast, Father explained that things were going very well with him and Lasa and that she had adjusted well and started after-school care. Father testified that even though he proposed equal parenting time with Lasa, he wanted to be designated primary residential parent “[f]or educational purposes, just to be able to make decisions that we need to for her.” He testified that he intended to move to Gallatin to the school district for Benny Bills Elementary when the marital home sold. His counsel submitted an amended proposed parenting plan changing the primary residential parent designation for Lasa from “Joint” to “Father.”

Father’s most recent paystub was submitted as an exhibit, which showed that his net income had increased to $6,301 per month. Mother was still covered under his insurance for the time being, so he admitted that his net income would increase again, by an additional $312 per month, once Mother was removed from his policies at the end of the month. Father also submitted a child support worksheet listing his monthly gross income at $8,541 and Mother’s at $1,923, which would result in Father owing child support of $1,400 per month. He testified that if he was ordered to pay that much child support, he would not be able to afford spousal support. He introduced a separate child support worksheet with an alternative calculation, which imputed income to Mother at $2,994 per month and resulted in a reduced child support payment of $1,049. Father suggested that Mother was voluntarily underemployed. His counsel introduced as an exhibit a chart he had downloaded from the website of Sumner County Schools, displaying a pay scale for teachers. It indicated that a teacher with a master’s degree and five years of service would earn $51,600. Father noted that he was going to be assuming the homeschool responsibilities for Noah and suggested that Mother could work full-time while homeschooling Anna.

Father testified the parties’ home was valued at around $600,000, with a mortgage balance of $232,500, so any equity realized from the sale of the home could be split equally and/or used to pay any award of alimony or attorney fees he was required to pay to Mother in a lump sum. However, he asked the court to deny any alimony award, stating that money was going to be “very tight” if he was ordered to pay $1,400 in child support. Father testified that he had received raises over the years, but they were not guaranteed in the form of a pay scale like a teacher, and there had been a few years when he did not receive one. When asked if he understood that Mother would “never be able to earn close to what you’re earning after the marriage,” Father responded, “Right.” But, he added, “If I look at that pay scale and we go even up to the 20, that can be an expectation.” The exhibit reflected that a teacher with a master’s degree would reach a maximum salary, after 25 years of service, of $70,172. When asked if it was really his position that Mother should receive no alimony, Father testified that it depended on how much child support he had to pay, because if he was ordered to pay $800 versus $1,400, “that’s a very different scenario of what I can pay a month,” so “depending on where child support lands, I do think there could be hopefully some room to help, if that’s you know, but it really depends upon the numbers.” Father had withdrawn $6,000 from an IRA to pay a portion of his attorney fees.

Mother testified next. First, with respect to Noah, Mother acknowledged telling Father that she believed he was unsafe around his sisters. She explained that Noah had “threatened Anna” after becoming upset with her and that she had growing concerns about his safety when driving. She explained that one day in recent months Noah had “dropped Anna off a good distance from our house out in Bethpage because he just kind of gets on a power trip when he’s in a car and there’s no other adults there, so he’s very bully-ish with her and apparently irresponsible with her, because he dropped her off on the side of a road and then went on with his friends.” Mother had not allowed Noah to drive his sisters ever since. She described several other issues that had occurred during the divorce proceeding. Noah had been kicked out of a summer camp for taking a knife and trying to sell it. She objected to Noah going on a camping trip out-of-state with older coworkers until Father said he would go as a chaperone, but then Father left early, leaving Noah to ride home with a friend. Mother saw on Life360 they were driving almost 100 miles per hour. Mother explained that Noah had also been grounded from his vehicle for the majority of December due to driving while on his phone, even though he had been grounded for such behavior “[a]gain and again and again.” When asked about her deposition testimony when she referred to Noah as a cheater and liar, Mother admitted that she still believed that, stating that he “is regularly dishonest and he has cheated at every opportunity he can get.” 3 She had also stated during her deposition that “he can be a jerk,” in the context of explaining why Noah would never commit to babysitting Lasa after school. Mother characterized the recent Christmas incident as another example in which “[h]im being rude was on display.” She explained that she received a text message from Noah that was “so disrespectful and rude and dismissive and mocking.” She believed Father stood in the way of her communication with Noah by instructing him not to respond. She also believed that Father’s text messages about the incident were false and that he was “posturing” for screen shots about coparenting to use in court, while undermining her decisions on other matters. She explained that during the same month, in December, Father had unilaterally allowed Noah to spend the night with his birth parents, even though they were “known drug addicts” and Mother had opposed overnight contact in the past, and Father made no effort to coparent with her about that decision. Finally, she noted that Father had permitted Noah to work full-time instead of doing homeschool that month. Overall, Mother explained that 3 During her deposition, Mother had used the terms “cheater” and “liar” when asked if she had concerns about Noah’s school performance if he was in Father’s care, and Mother expressed her fear that Father would not hold Noah accountable. Mother testified that Noah requires more oversight in the homeschool program because he “will do as little as possible and he will cheat,” noting that he will simply find answer guides and copy the answers.

she was responsible for disciplining Noah and that frequently made her “the bad guy in Noah’s eyes.” On the other hand, she described Father’s approach to Noah over the last year as “let’s just give Noah everything he wants.” She said “[Father] ha[d] become [Noah’s] ‘yes’ man” and gave him permission to do things he would not have before the divorce. She also testified that Noah had told her, “Dad says I only have to put up with you for two more months.”

Mother also testified about Anna. When asked if she had encouraged the relationship between Anna and Father, Mother replied, “I’ve not gotten involved with that.” She testified that Anna had “made her own decisions” and that she understood her decisions. According to Mother, on the day Father announced that he wanted a divorce, the family “sat down together, we talked about the rightness or wrongness of this before the Lord, how this is unbiblical.” Thus, Mother acknowledged telling the children that this was “an un-biblical divorce.” She added, “That’s scripture.” She noted that Father was in the room when this was discussed and “did not disagree.” Mother explained that she characterized the divorce as unbiblical “[i]n scriptural opinion” and noted that “this is the opinion that [Father] has raised our family on too.” She said they had attended church as a family for eleven years and that Father taught Sunday School there, although he had to step down from that position and stopped attending after he announced the divorce. Mother testified that Father was removed from the membership of their church “as a result of this unbiblical divorce.”

Mother testified that after Father filed for divorce, “[Anna] was confused on how to proceed after that because she knows it’s wrong and she knows it’s not the man that he has purported to be for all her life.” She explained that Anna “went through a few weeks of just almost disorientation” after Father said that he wanted a divorce, and Father continued to play with the children “like it’s life as usual, when it’s not[.]” She believed Anna did not know what to do at first but after a few weeks decided that “she didn’t like what was going on,” she did not like “his stance,” and she “pulled away from him greatly.” Mother testified that Father had not been able to answer Anna’s questions about the divorce, and “it really upsets her that he won’t answer her.” She testified that there had been “whole family conversations” about the divorce when Father was present, and she acknowledged that she and Anna had also talked about the divorce separately, stating, “For sure. It’s unavoidable.” Mother was asked if she had discussed with the children “things that are going on with your divorce,” and she said no. However, she acknowledged that she and the children had discussed logistical matters such as where they would live or attend school, stating “that’s not a gag order topic, I wouldn’t think.”

When asked again if she had tried to “redirect” Anna and encourage the relationship between her and Father, Mother said, “No, I don’t think I did. . . . I stayed out of it. I have honestly been in survival mode.” Mother believed it was not her responsibility to encourage Father’s relationship with Anna because it was his responsibility. She also said, “I don’t think that’s my responsibility to convince her to approve of something that she - 10 -

doesn’t want to -- that she knows to be wrong.” She noted that Anna and Noah were teenagers and that the parties had agreed that “they will make their own choices,” so she believed that also applied to how much Anna wanted to interact with Father. Mother said she had not relied on Father to help her navigate her relationship with Noah and that he had come to her house repeatedly since Christmas break. Mother testified that she believed Father was harassing Anna. She explained that he continued to go into her space when they were still living in the same house and left notes for her, even after Anna’s counselor had told Father “to stay out of her space.” 4 Mother testified that Father went through her trash and questioned things she had thrown away. She said he also “manipulated situations to try to make her be with him against her will,” which resulted in Anna being “in tears and her fleeing.” During her deposition, Mother testified that the last interaction she had observed between Anna and Father was a month earlier, when they had a disagreement about Father eating the eggs from their family chickens, which Anna sells. She said this was very upsetting to Anna and when “[Father] picked that fight with her, [] it didn’t go well. It made her madder.” She testified that since then Anna had been avoiding Father and “won’t even make eye contact, honestly.” Mother also testified that on the day when she and Anna went to retrieve items from the marital home, Father left presents on the porch for Anna, but Anna found the secret camera and it was “very upsetting for her.” She said that Noah had texted after the incident and admitted that “we set this up to catch you.” Mother said she told Anna that Father was probably trying to catch her on video rather than Anna, which she believed would relieve Father of some of the blame in Anna’s view, but Anna “took it personally.” Mother said she was not present in the room when Anna had thrown the remote or the key and did not know those things occurred, but once she learned about it, she was shocked and redirected her. Mother said she did not encourage that behavior.

Ultimately, Mother acknowledged that it is not healthy for a child to be without a parent, but at the same time, she noted that Anna currently did not trust Father, disagreed with him, and felt harassed by him. Mother testified, however, that she did not want to limit Anna’s involvement with Father. She also testified that she was not going to discourage Anna from having a relationship with Father. She said she had even told Anna, “it’s going to be okay if you feel differently later.” Mother also testified that she had not spoken negatively about Father in front of the children, nor had she allowed anyone else to do so.

Mother admitted that, while they had remained living in the marital residence during the divorce proceeding, she had avoided Father and generally went into her bedroom once he got home from work, as it was terribly uncomfortable for her to be constantly in his

4 Father had arranged for Anna to begin counseling sessions a couple of months before he filed for divorce, stating at the time that it would be beneficial in helping with sibling rivalry. He admitted during his deposition that he did this at least in part in anticipation of him filing for divorce, so that Anna would have a counselor in place once he made the announcement. - 11 -

presence given his desire for the divorce. She admitted that Anna had avoided Father as well but said their actions were not “robotic” or “orchestrate[d].” She testified that it was “very much an exaggeration” to say that she and Anna were always in her bedroom, as Anna spent time in other places too, going outside or in her own room. She said Anna was currently a Sophomore, was doing great in school, and was a very gifted student.

As for Lasa, Mother admitted that Father had a good relationship with her and testified that she does encourage their relationship. She acknowledged that Father had asked, a few months earlier, about taking Lasa to school in the mornings two days a week rather than one. Mother had responded with a message stating, “No thanks. That’s my job and I’d like to maintain our normal routine.” Since the last trial date, Mother had moved into a home in Hendersonville, about 25 minutes away from Lasa’s school. She was working part-time at another elementary school in Sumner County as a reading interventionist, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. She typically left in the mornings at 6:45 a.m. and drove Lasa to school in Gallatin, and Lasa’s school lasted from 7:40 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. Mother was in favor of Lasa remaining at Benny Bills Elementary but opposed Father’s plan to enroll her in after-school care. She testified that she would be available to pick Lasa up from school every day. Mother explained that her part-time work schedule was by design so that it worked with Lasa’s schedule, and she said that it was Father who told her to find such a schedule when he pushed her to find a job in the last year. She wanted to continue picking Lasa up and said that arrangement would be in line with “what we’ve made an entire family lifestyle.” Mother admitted that Lasa had attended an after-care program once before when she went to a pre-K program in Lebanon and rode with Father, but she said it was a “terribly long day” and that the parties only utilized it for one year. Mother questioned Father’s statement that Lasa would only be staying at after-care at Benny Bills until 4:30 in the afternoons and stated that during the marriage he had a history of not getting home until 5:30 or 6:30 in the evenings. She noted that this would result in Lasa having a nine to ten-hour school day. She also noted that Father would be working an hour longer in the summer. Mother testified that Lasa’s bedtime is typically 7:30 p.m. She said that since Father had enrolled Lasa in after-school care, there had already been one occasion where he picked her up late and had to take her back to work in Lebanon with him for a night meeting. Mother said it seemed “silly and mean-spirited” for Father to have Lasa in after-school care at an expense when she was available and wanted to spend the time with her.

Mother sought to be named primary residential parent of Lasa and proposed that she spend the majority of the time with her, visiting Father every other weekend and every Thursday overnight. She stated that her goal was to maintain stability and assurance for Lasa regarding where home was, with Mother continuing in the role of primary caregiver as she always had. She believed her plan would serve Lasa’s best interest by providing her “steadiness and routine and structure.” She testified that she hoped to shield Lasa from any further trauma of “breaking up” her life and wanted her to have a “home base” with Anna at her house. Mother stated, “Lasa already has a number of traumas under her belt. - 12 -

The divorce adds another.” However, she admitted that Lasa “still needs her father” and said she had already informed Father that she would have no problem with him exercising more time with Lasa than the official schedule adopted by the court.

Mother testified that, throughout the marriage, she had performed the majority of parenting responsibilities, handling school, doctor’s appointments, transportation, laundry, discipline, social activities, “everything.” She noted that during Father’s deposition, he did not know the name of the medication Anna had been taking since age seven, what dentist the children see, or what size clothes Lasa wears, believing she wore size 10/12 when it was actually size 16, as she is very big for her age. Mother testified that Father was a “passive parent” before he filed for divorce and had become “hyper-engaged” since, which she believed was “for show” in an attempt to demonstrate his involvement to the court. Mother claimed that Father had gone “into overdrive playing with Lasa” since the divorce was filed, and she conceded that Lasa was enjoying all the attention and entertainment. However, she stated her concern that Father was “more of a playmate” and that Lasa needed a parent. She explained that the past six months had really been “a tough trial” with the divorce and Mother starting a new job, and Lasa was struggling with math. However, she testified that she and Lasa had “buckled down” and did a lot of work on math during Christmas break, so that she was “evening out this new semester” and “grinning with confidence again.”

Mother also believed it would serve Lasa’s best interest to live primarily with her and Anna given issues that would be arising with puberty. Anna and Lasa had shared a bedroom for several years. Mother testified that Anna and Lasa were “really close” and had gotten closer during the divorce proceeding. She said she had never asked Lasa what she wanted, but Lasa had “offered up that she wants to be with me -- on more than one occasion.” Mother testified that if the trial court ordered the alternating weekly schedule “[w]e’d survive it,” but she did not think it was in Lasa’s best interest to be going back and forth every week, noting that it would be difficult to plan extracurricular activities if she was spending a week at each house. She wanted to be named sole decision-maker and believed making decisions jointly would be “a path for more conflict.”

Mother acknowledged that the parties had not experienced any issues with Lasa using an alternating weekly schedule during the month that elapsed between the trial dates, although she noted that school was not in session for most of that time due to Christmas break and snow days. She admitted that during her deposition she made a comment about not looking forward to co-parenting; however, she had added, “I don’t want this divorce. I don’t want my family to break up.” Mother testified that she envisioned coparenting with Father as “[c]ommunicating on the necessities” so that it would be smoother for Lasa going back and forth. She conceded that this would require direct communication and testified that she and Father had been able to effectively communicate regarding the children on the things that were required. However, Mother noted a recent example of poor communication when she and Anna took Lasa to her school musical performance and had - 13 -

no knowledge that Father was even in attendance, and when they went to pick up Lasa, they happened to see Father leaving with her. Mother said it shocked Lasa, Anna, and her because Father did not communicate this plan to any of them.

Mother testified that Father had informed her in December 2022 (shortly before the divorce was filed and just one year before trial), that during their marital struggles in the past two years he had “wished for his death or my own.” She thought it was concerning that Father’s depression was so severe that he would wish for his own death or hers. She said he had been seeing a counselor for several years. Mother said she had also learned from Father that when they moved into the marital residence in 2021, that a “little water closet was where he felt safe – the only place he felt safe,” and apparently he would go into the water closet even though she did not know it at the time. She believed his “disengagement” and depression reflected poorly on his parenting. Mother admitted that she no longer trusted or respected Father, feeling as if she did not “even know who he is any more.” She noted Father’s letter to his parents explaining his “abnormal reactions to normal situations” and suggested it was outrageous for him to suggest that she had been emotionally abusive to Noah when he admittedly reacts abnormally to normal things.

Mother was 44 years old and had been a stay-at-home mother since Noah was adopted with the exception of working “little side jobs” for a friend’s organizing business. She had renewed her teaching certificate the previous summer and began working in August 2023. She testified that she had not applied for any other jobs because she wanted to complete homeschooling Anna and get Lasa through elementary school before working full-time. Thus, Mother testified that she was not opposed to working as a teacher but wanted to wait two years until Anna, currently a Sophomore, finished homeschool, and Lasa, currently in third grade, reached middle school.

Mother testified that her current job paid $30 per hour and that she typically worked five hours per day five days per week, but her hours were less if the month included a break from school. Her monthly net income was typically around $1,800, but in January, she earned less than $1,000, and she would not work during summer breaks. Her income and expense statement reflected monthly net income of $1,542.52 and monthly expenses of $4,793.90, for a monthly deficit of $3,251.38. She would also begin paying for health insurance the following month. She testified that she was seeking an award of spousal support somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 per month, which, with child support, she said would give her just “enough to be able to get by” if she carefully managed her finances. Mother testified that she believed such an award would be fair given how much money Father earned per year and the fact that she stayed home to raise their children. She believed Father should also be responsible for paying her attorney fees because she was opposed to getting a divorce in the first place.

Finally, the trial court heard testimony from Anna, who was 15 years old. She stated that she was not entirely sure why she was there but “just hope[d] to maybe get more time - 14 -

with Lasa.” She testified that she and Lasa were really close and spent a lot of time together, and she wanted that to continue. When asked what they do together, Anna responded, “Everything.” She listed a number of activities. Anna was asked how often she had seen Mother or Father helping Lasa with homework. She testified that she had seen Mother helping Lasa “very often” but never Father prior to the divorce being filed. When asked to describe Father and Lasa’s interactions, she said “[t]hey’d play together after dinner.”

Anna was then asked about her own relationship with Father prior to the divorce. She said, “I loved my dad.” When asked how the relationship had changed, Anna testified that “he’s kind of altered my life in a way that is negative and he can’t answer for it.” Father’s counsel asked her the following questions:

Q. Have you and your dad talked about what all’s going on, what this is about, what you would come in and testify about? A. No. Q. Okay. Have you and your mom talked about what’s going on? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What’s your mom told you about what’s going on? A. She won’t tell me any of like the legal stuff, but she tells me that -- I don’t know. She doesn’t talk to me a lot about it anymore. Q. Okay. Did she at one point talk to you about it? A. Back this summer there was, yeah. Q. Okay. A. But then she told me that you or dad said that she can’t talk to me anymore. It’s really annoying. Q. Okay. You and her spend a lot of time together? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Was that in her room when your dad would come home? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did she ever encourage you to talk with your dad or y’all try to patch things up? A. She did at first, but then she just let me do my thing. Q. Okay. Do you still want to see your dad? A. No.

The trial judge then asked Anna why she did not want to see Father. Anna replied, “It’s just a very broken relationship and it’s not one that I’m ready to mend.” She added that Father “[has] not done anything to fix it.” She testified that Father “has hurt me in a lot of ways this year.” She noted that he filed for divorce when “he knew [it] was going to affect me and my siblings negatively.” She also said, “He’s gone against everything he’s ever taught me about my faith and he can’t answer my questions.” Anna explained that she had asked him: “How do you think this is okay?” She testified that the Bible taught that unless - 15 -

divorce is on the basis of sexual immorality, it “is not okay, and yet he’s doing it” and “can’t tell me why he’s doing it.” She said she was “sick” of Father telling her that he would talk to her about it when she was older. When asked how much time she currently spends with Father, Anna said “[n]one,” and she said when they still resided in the marital residence she “avoided him as much as possible.” She explained that the relationship between her and Father began to change at the end of April, about a month after the divorce was filed. She explained, “I tried to maintain a relationship with him, but I felt two very different things after spending time with each of my parents and I know there can only be one truth. And my mom’s able to answer when I asked her questions. My dad could not.” The trial judge suggested that she consider that people have different perspectives and asked her to explain her view on truth, to which Anna replied, “There’s right and wrong. There’s no in between, usually. My faith, there is one truth.” She explained that she had a strong Christian faith that was instilled by both her parents. When asked why she sent back Father’s Christmas gifts unopened, Anna testified, “I don’t want anything to do with him. He’s being a hypocrite.” She noted that Father attempted to give her Christmas presents while setting up a camera in the house to watch them, as Noah “even said there were multiple ones specifically to watch us.” Anna said, “That doesn’t make sense, giving me Christmas presents and then doing that.” The trial judge then took the matter under advisement.

The trial judge announced his oral ruling as to parenting time in February 2024. Despite listing the sixteen best interest factors for consideration, the trial judge stated that “one factor has played an outsized role in the Court’s determination.” The trial judge found that Mother “has not attempted to foster a healthy relationship with specifically Anna and [Father], and that has sometimes reflected itself in the care of Lasa.” The trial judge gave some examples, which we will discuss in detail later in this opinion. As a result of this analysis, the trial judge adopted Father’s proposed parenting plan and designated him as Lasa’s primary residential parent, with Lasa having an alternating weekly schedule. The trial court reserved its decision on alimony and attorney fees.

The trial court entered a final decree of divorce in May 2024. Pertinent to this appeal, Father was named primary residential parent of Lasa, with the parties alternating weekly parenting time. The parties were given joint decision-making authority. The trial court imputed income to Mother and calculated Father’s child support obligation at $1,048 per month. The trial court denied Mother’s request for alimony in futuro and instead awarded her transitional alimony of $2,203.38 for a period of five months. Father was ordered to pay this amount from his share of the proceeds of the marital residence. The order stated that the court anticipated that Mother could obtain a full-time teaching job by the coming school year, in August 2024. The trial court found that Father had incurred $17,422 in attorney fees while Mother had incurred $30,001.76. It found that Father had paid $6,000 of his attorney fees from a retirement account, so the court ordered him to pay an equal amount toward Mother’s attorney fees out of his share of the marital residence. Each party was responsible for paying the remainder of his or her own fees. Mother timely - 16 - filed a notice of appeal. 5

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

Mother presents the following issues for review on appeal: